VFR in IMC - Kasper Aviation

[Maynard]

FWIW, FSS is the same in yhd...it's Yxl fss

[DanWEC]

I'm aware, but where is the staff that made the observation? The station is at YXL. If so, then they called in a cador based on an auto obs at YHD? Not defending Kasper in the slightest (Emphasize Hell no!!), but I'm not sure how I feel about that.
I'm assuming Kasper maybe did something to really piss them off.

[Redneck_pilot86]

Absolutely a justified CADOR. Either Kasper flew into Dryden in crap weather, or the AWOS was reporting erroneously. Either case justifies a CADOR.

[digits_]

Absolutely a justified CADOR. Either Kasper flew into Dryden in crap weather, or the AWOS was reporting erroneously. Either case justifies a CADOR.

Not really. Our company is approved to fly at 300 ft AGL, so Kasper might be as well. Unless they came from a higher altitude on an illegal ifr approach of course, then they should be reported indeed.

[Star'Fox]

Absolutely a justified CADOR. Either Kasper flew into Dryden in crap weather, or the AWOS was reporting erroneously. Either case justifies a CADOR.

Not really. Our company is approved to fly at 300 ft AGL, so Kasper might be as well. Unless they came from a higher altitude on an illegal ifr approach of course, then they should be reported indeed.

I doubt your ops spec allows 300' at night. Pretty dark at 2200-2300Z to be flying from Yaq to Yhd at 300'.

[digits_]

Absolutely a justified CADOR. Either Kasper flew into Dryden in crap weather, or the AWOS was reporting erroneously. Either case justifies a CADOR.

Not really. Our company is approved to fly at 300 ft AGL, so Kasper might be as well. Unless they came from a higher altitude on an illegal ifr approach of course, then they should be reported indeed.

I doubt your ops spec allows 300' at night. Pretty dark at 2200-2300Z to be flying from Yaq to Yhd at 300'.

You are right, I missed that part.

[2R]

How did they get approval for single engine at night ?

[oldtimer]

I believe they may be able to operate SE/IFR and at night in an equipped airplane for all non-revenue flights. If they were positioning the airplane for next day charters they would be legal but if they were on a charter and paid for the round trip but coming home empty, I do not think that is allowed. A grey area that may need pencil whipping if required. Just my opinion.

[DanWEC]

No passengers usually, but they do cargo don't they?

[oldtimer]

I do not airplane think cargo qualifies. I worked for 3 reputable cargo carriers that did things right. Yes, as an all cargo airplane there are performance limitations that are not required but there were still regulations that had to be complied with. We had to have a servicable autopilot for single pilot IFR and we were able to fly a CARS 705 airplane without a flight attendent because we had no passengers but the owner was able to ride as a passenger. But if the autopilot quit, we needed a second type rated pilot to bring the airplane home with revenue cargo on board. But we often flew airplanes single pilot without an autopilot but only as a non revenue ferry flight.

[DanWEC]

I only assumed because a 703 I previously flew at had approval for single engine vfr at night, but with no passengers, even had an ops spec for low vis. Cargo was ok- revenue was irrelevant, just no warm bodies on board other than the pilot.

[oldtimer]

IMHO they are reading the headlines and taking a liberal interpetation what best serve their needs.
One thing I have observed in air transport, in trucking, in construction and now in Uber is that the owners are attempting to undercut and drive the competition out of business so they have it all to themselves.
Jetsgo tried and failed, Jetall tried and failed, Westjet tried and prospered (with above average management and a viable plan) but for all who tried the failure rate is very high. Just my opinion.

[oldtimer]

Do you get the feeling that the regulators feel that the flight crew are expendable. As an all cargo operator, TC often allows operations that would be prohibited with paying passengers on board. What is the difference between a pilot life as opposed to a passengers life. I guess the pilot knows the risk involved but passengers do not.
That feeling is addressed in the performance requirements for airplanes with 9 or less passengers but if you are flying a crowd killer, performance and safety has to reach a higher level.
It is obvious the regulators are following the lead of the airframe manufactureres and develop regulations that follow the capabilities of the airplanes.
Why do you have to have certified OEI take-off net flight path performance with a Metro 3/23 with 19 seats but if you remove 10 of those seats, all that is required is for a 2 engine take-off over a 50 foot screen. Are the 19 passengers in a Metro or Beech 1900 or the whole crowd in an Airbus A380 more important than the 9 passengers in a King Air 200 or the 3 passengers in a Seneca?
Now, can TC determine if the unprincipled operators are flaunting the law or are taking advantage of loopholes in the CARS.

[tipsails]

Absolutely a justified CADOR. Either Kasper flew into Dryden in crap weather, or the AWOS was reporting erroneously. Either case justifies a CADOR.

Not really. Our company is approved to fly at 300 ft AGL, so Kasper might be as well. Unless they came from a higher altitude on an illegal ifr approach of course, then they should be reported indeed.

Not at night you're not.

[goingnowherefast]

300' at night, I'd hope they were doing an illegal instrument approach. That's much safer. Illegal, but less dangerous.

[tvguru]

Seems like the most obvious point is missing.

In a control zone you have to be 500' below cloud and 1 mile horizontal. If you're allowed to fly at 300' you'd need 800'...
Unless you request SVFR then clear of cloud is the requirement.

Just because NavCanada bases their not letting you in the zone without a speci based on visibility, it doesn't change the CARs.

[lownslow]

...where is the staff that made the observation? The station is at YXL. If so, then they called in a cador based on an auto obs at YHD?

Not uncommon. A CADOR is simply a report of an occurrence with no blame given.

For a similar case, one morning a little while ago every airplane that landed in YMO was CADOR'ed for arriving VFR in "IMC." Turns out there was something wrong with the Ceiling-O-Meter, or whatever it's called and since FSS is in YTS they had no idea what the actual ceiling was. Easy to fix with TC and they quickly dispatched whoever maintains these machines to do their thing.

Not saying that's what happened here, just following up on what DanWEC had said.

[Gorgons]

Further to the notion a company has an Op's Spec for lower than standard, Nav Canada does not maintain a list or look up who has or hasn't a spec that differs from standard, they just report occurrences that fall within there parameters for reporting. Transport does the follow-up and decides if it was a actionable occurrence.

[DanWEC]

I suppose it's easy to forget that ultimately a CADOR is just reporting, even when it's something like this which seems incriminating, it's still just something mentioned in the reporting framework. Well, I learned something, which must mean that the internet isn't just for watching cat Gif's and arguing over Trump!

[tipsails]

Seems like the most obvious point is missing.

In a control zone you have to be 500' below cloud and 1 mile horizontal. If you're allowed to fly at 300' you'd need 800'...
Unless you request SVFR then clear of cloud is the requirement.

Just because NavCanada bases their not letting you in the zone without a speci based on visibility, it doesn't change the CARs.

Actually, the visual flight rules have changed and from what I understand only regulated by visibility now. 3SM is required. I will try to find the CAR/Circular.

Flight Schools are teaching old information.